Talk:OttoBib

deletion

{subst:PRODWarning|OttoBib.com}}

No hard feelings, but this is not yet ready for an article, according to the WP policy for software still under development, and for non-notable software. I have, however, entered it in the listing at the correct page for the time being., Reference management softwareDGG 05:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is a bit more reasonable. First let me say I have no commercial interest in this, I just found it to be a really useful tool for citing original sources in articles, per Wikipedia policy. On that basis alone, I believe it is worthy of an article, although it may not technically fit the letter of the notability(web) criteria. But WP policy also says to use good judgement, rather than slavishly follow the letter of the law.

I did do some additional checking, and found that a similar program has its own article, and listed it in a See also. I also found dozens of web listings, and at least three that were thoughtful enough to be a called a review, and added them under external links. Note that the independent quote in the main article also was written by a notable author with his own article (also linked).

I also strongly disagree with the "still under development" argument. By this reasoning, Microsoft Windows would not be notable (and never would). Clearly vaporware or early beta software would be NN, but once it becomes functional and useful, the fact that it could do more is not relevant--everything can be improved. Dhaluza 11:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The utility of a given subject to wikipedia editors is unrelated to its inclusion in the encyclopedia. It may be worth mentioning in the wikipedia namespace at WP:CITE, where it has remained unopposed. The subject of this article is not yet close to Wikipedia:Notability (software) or Wikipedia:Notability (web). The lifehack source is the best provided, but is nothing more than a mention of the service. Multiple non-trival sources should still be added to justify inclusion. ∴ here…♠ 18:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK thank you for the constructive and relevant feedback. I have contacted the author to inquire about other references. In the mean time, I am also looking for a home for the core content in another article. Dhaluza 23:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The intended home under Bibliographic database is undergoing a major content dispute. As noted in the ref from Zillman, this could also be a stub that is the start of a new category as well, but until this develops further (i.e. somebody names the category), I recommend keeping this as a stand-alone article. On a self-ref note, this article is also supporting a link at Special:Booksources Dhaluza 04:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Bibliographic database looks calm enough to add ottobib as a source. If the article is worth keeping, a link there is appropriate. And, if it survives the extra exposure there, no AfD necessary. Regarding Wikipedia:Book sources I see you added it yourself ( diff ). ∴ here…♠ 07:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

After further review, I've nominated this article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OttoBib.com. Best of luck using, building, and promoting the service! ∴ here…♠ 07:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Bibliographic database#What Happened to this page??. There is a content tug-of-war going on there. So I do not understand your observation that it "looks calm enough." Dhaluza 11:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

{{ad}}

The {{ad}} tag was added after the AfD without explanation. I cleaned up the article somewhat to remove some unnecessary info added to buttress notability. The remaining info is mostly direct quotes properly attributed. Unless someone can explain what still needs to be addressed, I will remove the tag. Dhaluza 11:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)